PAM. 

EUROPE 


International  Conciliation 

PRO  P  ATRIA  PER  ORB  IS  CONCORDIAM 

Published  Monthly  by  the 

American  Branch  Association  for  International  Conciliation 

EUROPEAN  SOBRIETY  IN  THE  PRESENCE 
OF  THE  BALKAN  CRISIS 


BY 

CHARLES  AUSTIN  BEARD,  Ph.D., 

Adjunct  Professor  of  Politics  in  Columbia  University 

DECEMBER,  1908,  NO.  13 

American  Branch  of  the  Association  for  International  Conciliation 
Sub-station  84  (301  West  116th  Street) 

New  York  City 


More  than  two  months  have  elapsed  since  a  serious 
crisis  was  precipitated  in  the  Balkans  by  the  un¬ 
expected  action  of  Bulgaria  and  Austria-Hungary, 
and  there  is  now  every  reason  for  hoping  that  the 
threatened  armed  conflict  will  be  avoided  by  the 
settlement  of  the  disputed  points  either  in  a  general 
conference  of  the  powers  or  through  independent 
negotiations.  Whatever  may  be  the  outcome  of  the 
controversy,  the  conduct  of  the  powers  during  the 
crisis  lends  encouragement  to  those  who  believe  that 
sobriety  is  driving  reckless  militarism  out  of  the 
councils  of  the  nations.  There  is  also  some  reason 
for  believing  that  the  Balkan  region  is  not  so  dangerous 
to  European  peace  as  past  history  has  undoubtedly 
implied.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  view  which  the  follow¬ 
ing  statement  of  the  case  seems  to  warrant 


Up  to  the  limit  of  the  editions  printed,  copies  of  the  following 
documents,  published  by  the  Association,  will  be  sent  post-paid 
upon  application. 

1.  Program  of  the  Association,  by  Baron  d’Estournelles  de 
Constant.  April,  1907. 

2.  Results  of  the  National  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress,  by 
Andrew  Carnegie.  April,  1907. 

3.  A  League  of  Peace,  by  Andrew  Carnegie.  November,  1907. 

4.  The  Results  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  by  Baron 
d’Estournelles  de  Constant  and  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill.  January, 
1908. 

5.  The  Work  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  by  James  Brown 
Scott.  January,  1908. 

6.  Possibilities  of  Intellectual  Co-operation  Between  North  and 
South  America,  by  L.  S.  Rowe.  April,  1908. 

7.  America  and  Japan,  by  George  Trumbull  Ladd.  June,  1908. 

8.  The  Sanction  of  International  Law,  by  Elihu  Root.  July,  190S. 

9.  The  United  States  and  France,  by  Barrett  Wendell.  August, 
1908. 

10.  The  Approach  of  the  Two  Americas,  by  Joaquim  Nabuco. 
September,  1908. 

11.  The  United  States  and  Canada,  by  J.  S.  Willison.  October, 
1908. 

12.  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  and  Japan  in  the  Far  East. 
November,  1908. 

13.  European  Sobriety  in  the  Presence  of  the  Balkan  Crisis,  by 
Charles  Austin  Beard,  December,  1908. 

Association  for  International  Conciliation. 

American  Branch, 

Sub-station  84,  New  York. 


Executive  Committee  of  the  American  Branch 


Nicholas  Murray  Butler 
Richard  Bartholdt 
Lyman  Abbott 
James  Speyer 


Richard  Watson  Gilder 
Stephen  Henry  Olin 
Seth  Low 
Andrew  D.  White 


Robert  A.  Franks 


EUROPEAN  SOBRIETY  IN  THE  PRESENCE  OF 

THE  BALKAN  CRISIS 


From  that  fateful  September  of  1683  when  Sobieski 
beat  the  Turks  back  from  the  wails  of  Vienna  and  ex¬ 
ultantly  announced  that  the  approaches  to  the  town, 
the  camp,  and  the  open  fields  were  covered  with  the 
corpses  of  the  enemy,  down  to  the  bloody  days  of  Se¬ 
bastopol  and  Plevna,  the  Sultan’s  territorial  interests 
west  of  the  Bosphorus  have  been  a  standing  menace  to 
the  peace  of  Europe.  Again  and  again  in  the  eight¬ 
eenth  century,  the  Eastern  powers  were  engaged  in 
desperate  conflicts  to  wrest  ever  larger  areas  from  the 
grip  of  the  Turk,  and  before  the  century  had  closed 
the  Western  powers  as  well  were  drawn  into  the  con¬ 
test.  They  assisted  at  the  formation  of  the  independ¬ 
ent  kingdom  of  Greece  and  narrowly  escaped  a  serious 
clash  when  the  Sultan  defied  them.  In  1854,  on  a 
pretext  that  seems  criminally  trivial  (whatever  may 
have  been  the  real  motives)  England,  France,  Turkey, 
Sardinia,  and  Russia  plunged  into  the  terrible  Crimean 
War  whose  horrors  at  Malakoff  and  the  Redan,  gave  a 
dash  of  bitterness  to  “the  brazen  glories”  of  Inkermann 
and  the  Light  Brigade.  In  1877,  Alexander  II,  using 
the  call  of  Bulgaria  as  a  pretext,  threw  his  troops 
across  the  border  and  they  were  cutting  their  way 
through  to  the  Sultan’s  capital  when  they  were  checked 
by  a  solemn  warning  from  England  that  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  Turk’s  estate  down  to  the  minutest  detail 
was  a  matter  of  European  interest.  Recalling,  perhaps, 
the  disasters  of  the  Crimea,  the  victorious  Tsar  yielded 


5 


as  gracefully  as  possible,  and  at  the  memorable  Berlin 
Conference  of  1878,  the  representatives  of  Great 
Britain,  Russia,  Germany,  France,  Austria,  Italy,  and 
Turkey  drafted  what  has  been  called  “the  fundamental 
law  of  Southeastern  Europe,”  establishing  the  status 
of  Bulgaria,  Eastern  Raumelia,  Crete,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  Servia,  Roumania,  and 
Macedonia.  With  the  exception  of  the  union  of  Bul¬ 
garia  and  Eastern  Roumelia  in  1885  the  grand  settle¬ 
ment  reached  at  Berlin  has  remained  substantially 
undisturbed,  each  nation  fearing  that  the  slightest  jar 
might  easily  bring  down  the  whole  structure  so  pain¬ 
fully  erected,  and  precipitate  a  disastrous  conflict 
among  the  powers  interested.  Even  the  apparently 
harmless  attempts  of  the  Cretans  to  unite  with  Greece 
were  several  times  repressed  by  military  demonstra¬ 
tions  on  the  part  of  the  powers  entrusted  with  the 
task  of  guarding  the  peace  of  the  Southeast. 

Suddenly  in  the  summer  and  autumn  of  this  year 
(1908)  there  occurred  a  series  of  startling  events 
which,  in  the  days  of  Napoleon  III  and  Disraeli,  would 
certainly  have  afforded  acceptable  pretexts  for  a 
general  armed  conflict.  In  July,  the  Young  Turk 
party  in  Constantinople  was  able  to  force  the  Sultan  to 
approve  the  restoration  of  the  suspended  constitution' 
of  1876  and  thus  reconstruct  the  government  of  Turkey. 
On  October  5,  Prince  Ferdinand  declared  at  Tirnovo, 
amid  great  rejoicing,  the  freedom  and  independence  of 
Bulgaria  from  Turkish  suzerainty.  Two  days  later 
came  the  official  proclamation  of  Austria-Hungary  an- 


6 


nexing  the  provinces  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  which 
the  treaty  of  Berlin  had  placed  under  the  administration 
of  the  dual  monarchy.  Before  the  diplomats  of  Eu¬ 
rope  could  catch  their  breath,  the  Cretans  announced 
their  emancipation  from  Constantinople  and  their  final 
union  with  Greece.  It  seemed  that  Turkey  had  com¬ 
mitted  political  suicide,  that  respect  for  law  and  order 
was  being  cast  to  the  winds,  and  that  the  hour  had 
come  for  a  general  scramble  in  which  the  strongest 
might  hope  for  a  lion’s  share. 

The  war  spirit  at  once  flamed  up  in  Europe  and 
for  a  time  it  looked  as  if  hasty  action  on  the  part  of 
some  minor  power  in  the  Southeast  might  bring  on  a 
local  conflict  whose  larger  implications  could  scarcely 
be  apprehended.  The  king  of  Servia  at  once  signed  a 
decree  ordering  the  mobilization  of  the  first  reserves 
of  the  army  numbering  about  35,000  and  his  call  to 
arms  was  greeted  with  great  enthusiasm.  Crowds  in 
Belgrade,  shouting  “Long  live  our  Bosnia!  Down 
with  Austria !  ”  attacked  the  Austrian  legation.  The 
mayor  of  Belgrade  presided  over  a  meeting  of  25,000 
persons  at  which  members  of  parliament  indulged  in 
the  most  violent  war  talk  and  were  greeted  with  shouts 
of  “  On  to  the  Drina  to  save  our  brothers!  To  arms! 
To  arms!  ”  The  Servian  Crown  Prince  addressing  the 
soldiers  clamoring  for  war  declared,  “For  him  who 
would  die,  I  wish  life;  for  him  who  would  live,  I  wish 
death.”  The  Servian  newspapers  published  inflamma¬ 
tory  articles  urging  the  government  not  to  yield,  and 
the  Servian  parliament  on  Monday,  October  12,  voted 
an  extraordinary  credit  to  the  minister  of  war  and 


7 


passed  a  resolution  that  it  was  willing  to  support  the 
ministry  to  the  fullest  extent  in  the  defense  of  Servian 
interests.  The  Charge  d' Affaires  representing  Servia 
at  London  gave  out  the  following  statement:  “  Austria 
has  cynically  thrown  a  bomb  into  the  powder  magazine 
of  Europe  and  it  is  impossible  to  foretell  to  what  the 
indignation  of  the  Servians  may  lead  them.  In  Servia 
the  matter  is  one  of  life  or  death.  To  explain  the 
indignation  in  my  country  it  is  necessary  to  point  out 
that  the  majority  of  the  population  which  will  now 

pass  under  Austrian  rule  is  Servian . Twice 

Servia  has  gone  to  war  over  the  question  of  Bosnia.” 

While  the  excitement  in  Servia  seemed  swiftly  bear¬ 
ing  the  population  toward  war,  the  Montenegrins 
joined  in  the  clamor  for  armed  resistance  to  Austrian 
aggression.  In  opening  the  parliament  on  Monday, 
October  12,  the  Prince  declared  that  his  people  had 
suffered  a  great  wrong  at  the  hands  of  Austria,  and 
were  ready  to  sacrifice  their  last  drop  of  blood  to  set 
matters  right  if  necessary.  Parliament  promptly  passed 
a  vote  of  confidence  in  the  government  and  unani¬ 
mously  sanctioned  the  demand  for  military  supplies. 

The  European  press  treated  the  violation  of  the 
Berlin  Treaty  as  a  serious  event,  and  some  of  the  more 
belligerent  papers,  confidently  anticipating  war,  an¬ 
nounced  the  actual  commencement  of  hostilities  be¬ 
tween  Austria  and  Servia  The  Paris  Journal  declared 
that  the  Balkan  States  “  are  on  the  brink  of  a  precipice 
and  the  European  powers  are  about  to  give  free  rein 
to  their  appetite  for  dominion.”  The  Petit  Parisien 
urged,  “the  chances  of  war  are  manifold  unless  Europe 


8 


is  sensible  enough  solemnly  to  declare  that  no  blood 
shall  be  shed.”  The  London  Times  deplored  the  injury 
which  the  action  of  Austria  and  Bulgaria  had  done  to 
the  prestige  of  the  new  regime  in  Turkey,  and  added: 
“Were  that  prestige  destroyed,  the  steps  taken  by 
these  two  Christian  lands  would  probably  result  in 
plunging  Macedonia  and  other  wide  regions  of  Turkey 
into  a  welter  of  blood  and  rapine  more  horrible  than 
that  from  which  they  have  been  rescued  by  the  revolu¬ 
tion . .  They  must  bear  the  consequences  of 

their  acts.  ” 

While  the  papers  in  Western  Europe  realized  the 
gravity  of  the  situation,  not  a  single  one  of  weight 
took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  for  “good  jour¬ 
nalism  ”  to  urge  any  hasty  action  inviting  even  the  risk 
of  war.  And  the  governments  of  all  the  great  nations 
took  a  judicial  attitude,  which  conclusively  demon¬ 
strated  their  realization  of  the  responsibilities  resting 
upon  the  power  making  the  first  belligerent  move. 
Even  the  government  of  Turkey,  whose  prestige  and 
interests  were  most  seriously  affected  by  the  crisis, 
speedily  announced  a  pacific  policy,  while  making  it 
clear  that  the  offenses  committed  by  Bulgaria  and 
Austria  against  legitimate  rights  warranted  the  use  of 
force.  Instead  of  rushing  to  arms  and  calling  on  the 
Powers  that  had  signed  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  to  main¬ 
tain  their  own  public  agreements,  Turkey  appealed  to 
the  decision  of  the  contracting  parties,  and  stated  that 
she  would  “await  their  decision  with  calm.” 

Russia  responded  to  the  appeal  from  Constantinople 
with  a  proposition  that  a  conference  of  the  powers 


9 


signatory  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  should  be  held,  and 
the  contested  issues  peacefully  adjusted  by  the  parties 
interested.  This  view  of  the  impasse  was  taken  also 
by  Great  Britain,  France,  Italy,  and,  conditionally,  by 
Germany.  Although  it  is  by  no  means  decided  that  the 
vexed  questions  are  to  be  settled  by  a  great  confer¬ 
ence  of  the  powers,  it  seems  certain  that  no  country  is 
willing  to  take  the  huge  risk  of  plunging  Europe  into 
war.  While  the  expected  conference  is  being  in¬ 
definitely  delayed,  negotiations  are  proceeding  between 
Turkey  and  Bulgaria  and  Austria;  the  representatives 
of  all  countries  show  an  anxiety  to  reach  a  peaceful 
settlement;  and  a  pacific  note  runs  through  the 
propositions  and  counter-propositions  which  have  thus 
far  found  their  way  to  the  public.  It  is  hazardous,  of 
course,  to  prophesy,  but  if  the  tone  of  the  European 
press,  the  rates  of  war  insurance,  and  the  avowed 
policy  of  the  most  militant  of  the  Powers  involved  are 
to  be  accepted  as  indications,  Europe  will  escape  the 
threatened  war. 

It  would  be  unwarranted,  however,  to  conclude 
that  such  a  happy  result  has  been  achieved  through 
the  influence  of  abstract  notions  of  justice  and 
righteousness  alone.  It  would  be  unwarranted  also 
to  assume  that  material  interests  alone  have  been 
responsible  for  the  cautious  reserve  which  now  char¬ 
acterizes  the  policy  of  all  the  powers  concerned. 
In  fact,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  advocate  of 
peace,  it  matters  little  whether  war  has  been  so  far 
prevented  by  a  complex  of  economic  interests,  the 


io 


fear  of  war  in  itself,  the  unwillingness  of  statesmen  to 
assume  the  terrible  responsibility  for  a  general  con¬ 
flict,  or  by  a  belief  in  the  folly  and  futility  of  war. 
Indeed,  no  single  factor  has  been  responsible  for  the 
outcome.  If  one  examines  the  comments  of  the 
European  papers  on  the  crisis,  the  semi-official  state¬ 
ments  from  the  respective  governments,  and  the  gen¬ 
eral  distribution  of  interests  in  Southeastern  Europe, 
he  will  discover  that  many  elements  have  entered  into 
the  maintenance  of  peace. 

First  among  the  pacific  influences  must  be  placed 
the  calm  and  reasonable  attitude  of  the  Constitutional 
Liberals  in  Turkey.  Instead  of  attempting  to  stir 
the  mob  spirit  by  mad  appeals  for  “  a  holy  war  on  the 
infidels,”  in  accordance  with  the  vogue  once  famous 
in  Constantinople,  they  sought  to  quiet  the  unrest  of 
the  militant  elements  among  the  population.  In  its 
note  to  the  powers,  the  Turkish  government  stated 
that  it  “could  resort  to  force  to  ensure  the  protection 
of  its  rights,  but  being  above  all  respectful  to  treaties 
and  anxious  for  the  common  interests  involved  in  the 
need  for  peace,  it  desires  to  avoid  such  an  extremity.” 
It  is  well  known  that  members  of  the  Young  Turk 
party  have  been  long  in  Western  capitals  studying 
modern  political  methods,  and  also  that  they  have 
manifested  an  intense  interest  in  the  conferences  at 
the  Hague  and  in  the  proposed  programs  for  the 
peaceful  adjustment  of  international  disputes.  The 
Constantinople  correspondent  of  the  London  Times 
telegraphed  his  paper,  when  the  news  of  the  action  of 
Bulgaria  and  Austria-Hungary  was  made  known,  as 


follows:  “All  Turkish  journals  publish  long  leading 
articles  dealing  with  the  situation.  Their  tone  is 
almost  without  exception  the  reverse  of  Chauvinistic, 
and  an  appeal  to  arms  is  generally  deprecated ....  It 
is  pointed  out  that  in  spite  of  the  cruel  blows  dealt  to 
national  prestige,  the  interests  of  the  empire  demand 
a  calm  and  pacific  attitude  on  the  part  of  every  section 
of  the  population.” 

A  second  factor  in  the  maintenance  of  peace  was 
the  clear,  firm,  and  moderate  attitude  taken  by  the 
Liberal  government  in  England.  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
in  a  public  address  delivered  soon  after  the  declaration 
of  Bulgarian  independence,  stated  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  could  not  agree  to  the  violation  of  the  treaty 
until  the  other  powers  were  consulted,  that  every  effort 
should  be  made  to  prevent  the  startling  events  from 
militating  against  the  reform  movement  in  Turkey, 
and  that  the  practical  and  material  changes  had  not 
been  so  great  as  alarmists  had  contended.  The  Prime 
Minister,  Mr.  Asquith,  at  the  opening  of  Parliament  a 
few  days  later,  expressed  the  hope  that  those  interested 
in  reaching  an  agreement  would  not  precipitate  a  crisis 
by  hasty  action  but  would  continue  to  show  modera¬ 
tion  and  restraint.  The  leader  of  the  opposition  in 
the  House  of  Lords  stated,  “that  their  one  desire 
was  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  government  in  the 
task  of  maintaining  the  public  law  of  Europe  and  pre¬ 
serving  the  peace  of  the  world.” 

In  France  the  press  in  some  quarters  declared  that 
only  a  congress  could  avert  war,  but  the  government 
showed  no  anxiety  to  make  capital  by  assuming  a  bel- 


12 


ligerent  attitude.  There  was  no  Napoleon  III  to 
appeal  to  the  glories  of  Austerlitz  and  Wagram,  and 
the  ministry,  seriously  occupied  with  pressing  questions 
of  domestic  reform  and  expedients  for  meeting  already 
overtopping  military  expenditures,  did  not  betray  the 
slightest  interest  in  the  possibilities  of  winning  fame 
again  at  Sebastopol.  Things  have  changed  in  France 
since  1854.  Doubtless  the  Journal  des  Debats  voiced 
the  sentiments  of  all  sober  Frenchmen  in  the  following 
declaration:  “Without  neglecting  our  interests,  we 
should  join  with  our  allies  and  friends  in  preventing  the 
destruction  of  the  European  equilibrium.  We  ought  to 
see  to  it  that  Turkey  receives  the  satisfaction  due  her, 
and  if  war  does  arise  compel  a  limitation  of  the  conflict 
and  prevent  the  conflagration  from  becoming  general. 
Our  role  is  that  of  a  peace-maker.  Our  government 
should  speak  firmly;  it  has  all  France  behind  it.” 

There  is  no  doubt  also  that  the  minor  powers  of 
Southeastern  Europe  have  learned  some  lessons  dur¬ 
ing  the  last  twenty-five  years.  They  have  taken  part 
in  the  Hague  conferences  and  are  parties  to  the 
Hague  conventions.  They  have  been  devoting  their 
attention  with  more  or  less  success  to  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  the  arts  of  peace  and  industry.  They  are 
developing  financial  and  commercial  interests  which 
give  them  pause  in  the  face  of  the  derangement  of 
business  that  war  inevitably  engenders.  Despite  some 
bluster  and  unquestionable  pressure  from  the  excitable 
elements  of  the  population,  the  governments  most 
deeply  involved  took  a  studiously  pacific  attitude 
after  the  first  impulses  were  inhibited. 


13 


Credit  must  be  given  likewise  to  the  ententes  now 
existing  between  England,  France,  and  Russia.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  period  when  the  crisis  was  at  its  height,  the 
negotiations  among  these  powers  were  conducted  with 
a  frankness  and  cordiality  which  were  undoubtedly 
facilitated  by  the  previous  good  understanding.  Cer¬ 
tainly  this  may  be  regarded  as  an  illustration  of  how 
friendly  relations  cultivated  assiduously  in  time  of 
peace  may  be  conductive  to  judicial  calm  in  critical 
situations. 

Thus  a  great  political  revolution  has  taken  place;  a 
general  European  settlement  has  been  violently  over¬ 
turned;  Austria  has  been  guilty  of  aggression  akin  to 
that  of  Russia  in  times  past;  every  pretext  has  been 
afforded  for  some  militant  power  to  precipitate  a  con¬ 
flict;  and  yet  pacific  councils  have  prevailed.  High 
talk  about  “the  glory  of  France”  so  characteristic  of 
the  Second  Empire  has  been  conspicuously  absent  from 
the  French  press.  England  has  found  no  responsible 
political  leader  to  emulate  the  example  of  the  flam¬ 
boyant  Beaconsfield  and  call  for  the  war  dogs  to  avenge 
the  attack  upon  “the  integrity  of  Turkey.”  Every¬ 
where  in  the  voluminous  discussions  of  the  upheaval, 
there  is  a  note  of  moderation  and  good  sense.  Instead 
of  the  reckless  abandon  of  old  fashioned  militarism, 
there  is  a  sane  conservatism  born  of  the  clear  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  responsibilities  assumed  by  the  Power 
that  dares  cast  the  first  fire-brand.  Surely  without 
undue  optimism,  this  happy  escape  from  the  crisis  may 
be  deemed  a  triumph  for  the  cause  of  peace. 

CHARLES  A.  BEARD. 

14 


COUNCIL  OF  DIRECTION  FOR  THE  AMERICAN  BRANCH 
OF  THE  ASSOCIATION  FOR  INTERNATIONAL 

CONCILIATION 


Lyman  Abbott,  New  York. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Boston. 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
Charles  H.  Ames,  Boston,  Mass. 

Richard  Bartholdt,  M.  C.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Clifton  R.  Breckenridge,  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas. 
William  J.  Bryan,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

T.  E.  Burton,  M.  C.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  New  York. 

Andrew  Carnegie,  New  York. 

Edward  Cary,  New  York. 

Joseph  H.  Choate,  New  York. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston,  Mass. 

Arthur  L.  Dasher,  Macon,  Ga. 

Horace  E.  Deming,  New  York. 

Charles  W.  Eliot,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  W.  Foster,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Richard  Watson  Gilder,  New  York. 

John  Arthur  Greene,  New  York. 

James  M.  Greenwood,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Franklin  H.  Head,  Chicago,  III. 

William  J.  Holland,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

James  L.  Houghtaling,  Chicago,  III. 

David  Starr  Jordan,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 
Edmond  Kelly,  New  York. 

Adolph  Lewisohn,  New  York. 

Seth  Low,  New  York. 

Clarence  H.  Mackay,  New  York. 

W.  A.  Mahony,  Columbus,  Ohio. 

Brander  Matthews,  New  York. 

W.  W.  Morrow,  San  Francisco,  C.al. 

George  B.  McClellan,  Mayor  of  New  York. 

Levi  P.  Morton,  New  York. 

Silas  McBee,  New  York. 

Simon  Newcomb,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Stephen  H.  Olin,  New  York. 

A.  V.  V.  Raymond,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Ira  Remsen,  Baltimore,  Md. 

James  Ford  Rhodes,  Boston,  Mass. 

Howard  J.  Rogers,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Elihu  Root,  Washington,  D.  C. 

J.  G.  Schurman,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Isaac  N.  Sei.igman,  New  York. 

F.  J.  V.  Skiff,  Chicago,  III. 

William  M.  Sloane,  New  York. 

Albert  K.  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y. 

James  Speyer,  New  York. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mrs.  Mary  Wood  Swift,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
George  W.  Taylor,  M.  C.,  Demopolis,  Ala. 

O.  H.  Tittman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  H.  Tolman;  New  York. 

Benjamin  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

Edward  Tuck,  Paris,  France. 

William  D.  Wheelwright,  Portland,  Ore. 
Andrew  D.  White,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 


IRVING  PRESS,  NEW  YORK 


